Syndicate

Meta

"Spot on. Insightful, brilliantly researched and written, a book that anyone who loves this nation needs to read."

-former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft

"A book that all Americans worried about the fate of this nation should read before it is too late."

-Dennis Miller

"A must read for all who value freedom."

-Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America

The Origin Of Armored Morality

Natural morality originates from the biological core and is directly expressed through the surface undistorted by armor from the destructive middle layer.

The differences in the armored morality of the political right and the left has to do with how each group deals with their destructive middle layer and also with the anti-authoritarian transformation of Western society. During the authoritarian era (prior to around 1960) the predominant form of morality was authoritarian: From a biophysical standpoint, impulses originating from people’s biological core passed through their destructive middle layer and were expressed through the superficial layer. The amount of destructive middle layer that was contained in the moral impulse was proportional to how far the individual was to the political right of the socio-political spectrum. Because impulses passed from the core through the destructive middle layer, most people in those days were in contact with both layers and, as a result, the distinction between good and evil was easily discernible to them; Good and evil, right and wrong were moral absolutes. Americans were more united in seeing the good and the greatness of their country. They saw the evilness of both red and black fascism and the need to fight when necessary to preserve their freedom. In today’s anti-authoritarian era, these people belong somewhere to the right flank of the political spectrum.

With the anti-authoritarian transformation of society, an entirely different kind of morality has developed. Called political correctness, this morality is the result of a change in the functional relationship between the superficial and destructive middle layers in people’s bio-psychic structure. Now, the superficial layer including the intellect, is not in the service of expressing impulses from the core and middle layers as in the case of authoritarian morality but in defending against the perception of impulses from the core and destructive middle layers.

This change in the bio-psychic structure of armored humans accounts for the morality of political correctness. It is the morality of those belonging on the political left: For them, all moral thinking originates from the social surface since contact with the core and destructive middle layers is lost. They distance themselves from having contact with the deeper layers by their defensive use of intellectualism and by having contempt for core feelings. Morality that originates from the superficial layer becomes a relative principle. For example, a person’s intentions which originate from the superficial layer is the ever changing yardstick which is used to measure what is valued as good or bad. Moral relativism means that nothing is intrinsically good and nothing is intrinsically bad. Thus, for example, in the case of the green “save the earth” movement, people who are involved in it are the good “morally superior” ones. They are the progressive ones on the wave of the future compared to others who are not involved in this noble quest.

A new kind of collective morality is set in place to replace the old, individually based, authoritarian form. This new morality is an attempt to eliminate the problem of the destructive secondary layer by pulling energy up into the head and thereby cutting off contact not only with the secondary layers but also with the biological core. In doing so, it throws out the baby with the bath water. By getting rid of the biological core from where the emotions originate, this new morality helps to bring about the de-humanization of the human race.

But, not every liberal has a PC agenda, and you can hardly say that the conservatives who want to make money at the cost of gambling with the money of retirees, reducing the the medical care insurance companies will provide, and with a complete disregard for the environment are somehow acting from their biological core.

And, surely Reich’s work-democracy asks us to transcend national boundaries. Reich’s late Americanism, that replaced his earlier hopes for communist movements, was certainly misplaced since the American government came after him. His hope in the American conservative turned out to be as naive as his earlier hopes about communism.

So, the question remains, do you really just want to advocate a return to the old authoritarian morality and nationalism or can you see that a new morality and a new politics that transcends national boundaries is in order?

I am not advocating a return to the “good old days” when things were somehow better. I am advocating for stopping the headlong descent into anarchy and socialism which is what the mainstream left is calling social progress. I am for buying enough time by arresting the social decline so that the science of orgonomic sociology can take root and provide some rational guidance to our sick society. Understand that when I speak of conservatives and liberals, I am using these terms in the characterological sense as employed by Dr. Elsworth Baker in his book, Man in the Trap. These are strictly defined scientific terms that should not be confused with the common political usage of these words that could be applied to any individual regardless of his socio-political character structure. Many true liberals are not caught up in the morality of PC and many people who vote republican are not true conservatives but are, in fact, psychopaths who are actively at work wrecking the marketplace.

It is precisely the leftists’ post-modernism that is breaking down the authoritarian’s influence in universities that will allow for Reich’s work (which was always excluded in the authoritarian days) to return. It is foolish to make a slippery slope argument that the democrats introducing a mandatory health insurance bill will become communism. Consider how health care is set up and almost every other first world nation- this bill hardly closes any of the distance!

And again, if you recognize there are problems on the politic right why don’t you ever post about them?

I have some social orgonomy for you… consider Reich’s sttement: “homo normalis blocks off entirely the perception of basic orgonotic functioning by means of rigid armoring; in the schizophrenic, on the other hand, the armouring actually breaks down and thus the biosystem is flooded with deep experiences from the biophysical core with which it cannot cope” (the schizophrenic split).

Let’s be honest, all mainstream politics= tertiary layer. Both parties are centerist and not that different. Obama’s health care is largely based upon Mitt Romney’s health care system set up in Massachusetts. Obama continued Bush’s tax cuts to the rich, etc.

Let’s say that besides mainstream politics that the humanities in the average university and the social organizations that are formed from them like the American Psychological Association, for example, are also coming from the tertiary layer since they offer some form of mechanistic, mystical, or post-modern blending of the two.

Now how should we consider the American College of Orgonomy? It has no ties to any tertiary level organizations. It has no influence on politics and no standing in any universities. To be blunt, it is functionally psychotic as a social organization. It has a great deal of knowledge, because Reich is right in many ways, but it megalomaniacally has no interest in incorporating the work of philosophy or psychoanalysis, nor offering us new studies of art or religion, nor extending Reich’s work into other fields- fields that Reich has already shown to be valuable and contributed to.

And, to view it’s relation to the tertiary level, how does it appear if not as a masochistic character: complaining; whining; but secretly calling out for love from the same tertiary institutions that it criticizes.

Reich’s writings are not holy scripture. Reich had grown up in a world before World War One without passports, an already globalized economy, and vast empires without borders. After the war Europe turned into a claustrophobic mess. Also, it should be obvious why, as a refugee in the 1930s and the early 1940s, in a world torn apart by nationalistic idiocy Reich stressed internationalism. And, well, objectively work democracy was undermined at this time by one force: nationalism.

But today the very opposite is true. Take the unification of Europe which is utterly criminal both from the point of view of democracy and from the point of view of economics. It’s the EUSSR!

At Reich’s time the unification of Europe was a wonderful dream, today it’s a nightmare.

It is difficult to boil down Reich’s true contributions to humanity so that people can understand what he accomplished (under the most difficult of circumstances) without writing a book.

Without detracting an iota from Reich’s greatness and contributions, there are some pitfalls in taking some of Reich’s sociological and political writings and trying to apply them to our current situation.

I think Dr. Konia’s book provides a more appropriate in depth picture of the current dangerous state of affairs for the U.S. and by implication the rest of the world.

Not to respect Konia’s work because he does not reference people like Nietzsche and Elias (and Heidegger, Sartre, and Foucault?!) would also apply to Reich’s work. For example since Fromm it was argued again and again that Reich did not understand Marx.

Anyway, I prefer Konia’s approach as a psychiatrist because all of those luminaries, like Marx and Nietzsche, knew actually nothing about the daily life of working people.

Dr. Konia,
I would like to point out one of the most dangerous – for the human future and the well being of the coming generations (the children of our future) – modern armored “moral” aspect that is rising from the enacting of the so called “gay rights” – a pure consequence of the prevailing of liberal thinking and the political correctness in the modern anti-authoritarian societies. One of these “rights” is the “right” of the same sex adoption of a child. No surprise that this totally rotten “morality” (morality as a “social construction” according to the widespread sociological nonsense!) is really backed from many so called leftist scientists and the modern collectivistic thinking of cultural marxism. It’s a very distressing thing for me to see today that there is not even one serious scientific research about the serious short and long term consequences on child’s sexual and emotional life (for me, this “right” is simply a right for child abuse). Not even one scientific research as I know. Emotional plague at work!

Yes,
To legislate into existence the right for homosexuals to impose their not normative libidinal urges onto developing human organisms is the epitome of our pseudo-scientific dictatorship’s attempt to overthrow the natural morality that has prevented evil from overcoming good within human civilization. This great inversion is culminating as we speak in the figure of Barack Obama.

An effective strategy of pseudo-liberalism/ communism is to undermine (i.e., change) the original meaning of words and concepts in our society.

An example is the word “gay”. You could be unhappy about being homosexual so calling someone who is unhappy “gay” is an oxymoron. I try to never use the word “gay” to refer to someone who is homosexual and I usually follow with the word “homosexual” when someone uses the word “gay” to keep the more accurate word alive.

The statement above does not have anything to do with anyone who is homosexual but more to do with the manipulation instigated by the pseudo-liberal movement.

One practical function of the social orgonomist in the future could be to educate the population about the transformation of the language over the last 60 plus years (due to the transformation of our society to anti-authoritarian). In doing so this would represent a conscious effort to “de-indoctrinate” the masses (especially the younger generations) and reduce the use of pseudo-liberal propaganda that is infecting everyday language.

A very recent example of a new pseudo-liberal term that seems so innocent but has taken hold is the following:

“The 1% or conversely the 99%”

This is one of the propaganda smears intended to entrench the concept of class warfare in our society that Obama has trumpeted since he was a very young adult.
I hear businessmen being interviewed use these “percentages” everyday not understanding the intended consequences of their real meaning. Like good little boys, they repeat these pseudo-liberal mantras in hopes that they won’t offend anyone because of their success. Most are patriotic Americans but under the fear of political correctness (i.e. an emotional plague attack) they buckle to social pressure. In effect, they give credibility and more power to those who are attacking them.

This is the way a politician’s words, actions and policies (i.e. socio-political acting out of his or her character structure and emotional problems) act as a deadly bio-emotional virus or bacteria infecting the unsuspecting armored indoctrinated masses (rich or poor).

Until I came across Dr. Konia’s book, The Emotional Plague, I, unfortunately, was one of the “U.A.I.M” (i.e. unsuspecting armored indoctrinated masses). I didn’t give up the hold my pseudo-liberal indoctrination had on me without a damn good fight.